CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

[Tim Bonney]

I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step.

Really? I'm already seeing push back from at least one Welcoming and Affirming congregation in a pretty high profile article. I think the LGBTQ folks are likely to see this as almost a slam. You are good enough for supporting roles but not leadership roles.

Ed: Tim, I am curious where is the article in which are you seeing this "push back"?

Here ar a few links Ed.

https://baptistnews.com/article/lgbtq-i ... oRtv2aZOoi

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeffhood/go-hell-cbf/

http://calvarydc.org/pastoral-letter-2/

Again, as I read this, it is a lose lose situation. There aren't any principles I can think of on either the left or the right which argue that a good policy is that you can hire LGBTQ people but not for leadership positions.

If, theologically, you are opposed to LGBTQ persons having employment in the fellowship you should be against it in all cases. If you are for it, what possible reason for excluding people from leadership if you believe in welcoming LGBTQ people?

This straddles the fence in a way that just is going to bring a lot of pain to the CBF.

[Sandy]

The link Timothy posted to the Jeff Hood article on the Patheos blog isn't worth the waste of time to read. It's a demanding, my way or the highway diatribe full of hate and intolerance.

The Baptist News article points to two congregations, one in Little Rock, one in Washington, DC, who have decided to reconsider their support for CBF after this decision, after fully supporting the fellowship during years when the hiring policy prohibited any consideration of LGBTQ persons for employment. One of the churches, Calvary, had a former pastor who was openly critical of CBF congregations a few years back when some discussion about changing the hiring policy led to speculation that some conservative churches might leave.

It is my understanding that there were leaders from Welcoming and Affirming churches within CBF that were part of the Illumination Process, and the viewpoints and perspectives that were gathered assured the Welcoming and Affirming churches of virtually equal representation. Maybe being patient and waiting to hear from those leaders who advocate for complete inclusion of LGBTQ persons in CBF's hiring who were involved and consulted will lead to a higher level of understanding.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

Certainly not all viewpoints are conciliatory. But I do think it is clear that push back is happening. And, if I were part of the LGBTQ community I think I would feel insulted by the power dynamics in this decision. If you want to be leadership, you can't be GLBT. If you want to just be a flunky, maybe we'll throw you a bone.

I know that isn't how it is intended. But from the outside, that is how it looks and how I think it is likely to look to folks involved with AWAB and other affirming group.

The UMC is struggling mightily to think about a compromise in this area ourselves. And the major thing to avoid is any kind of compromise that looks demeaning to someone on either side. So far, the UMC has handle sexuality issues poorly. I'm afraid it is very very hard for institutions, even very well meaning, to find a good compromise that allows for people to follow their conscience AND work together in an equal way.

[Sandy]

I'd say that the two churches mentioned in the article would be "push back," but given the estimated size of the Welcoming and Affirming community within CBF, they are two churches on the far left fringe. The church in Little Rock appears to have more invested in CBF than Calvary in Washington, given all of their various affiliations.

Would CBF have been better off to simply not consider any change? It seems so, since these churches were supporting it, apparently indefinitely, without its having done anything to the hiring policy. Though I don't think comparisons to the civil rights movement are the same with regard to sexual orientation, that didn't happen the first time a compromise was proposed.

Christian groups set themselves up for "lose lose" propositions. Though the language gets inserted, there's really little consideration given to the fact that there is at least one other side, and that their arguments are equally legitimate, and factually supported. It's not hard to build a case for the sinful nature of homosexuality or gender identity issues from a Biblical perspective. Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines. The clergy-directed, mainline denominations that have enforced acceptance of gay and lesbian ordination, and assign clergy to churches have blown up over this issue, and the people who are departing, in significantly large numbers, aren't Baptist conservatives, they're moderate to liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, among others. Where do you draw the line between the continued existence, and well being, of your organization, and the importance of changing a policy to weigh in on a principle eighty or ninety percent of your people don't really support or agree with?

[Jim]

Christian groups set themselves up for "lose lose" propositions. Though the language gets inserted, there's really little consideration given to the fact that there is at least one other side, and that their arguments are equally legitimate, and factually supported. It's not hard to build a case for the sinful nature of homosexuality or gender identity issues from a Biblical perspective. Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines. The clergy-directed, mainline denominations that have enforced acceptance of gay and lesbian ordination, and assign clergy to churches have blown up over this issue, and the people who are departing, in significantly large numbers, aren't Baptist conservatives, they're moderate to liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, among others. Where do you draw the line between the continued existence, and well being, of your organization, and the importance of changing a policy to weigh in on a principle eighty or ninety percent of your people don't really support or agree with?

Absolutely spot-on in spades. It's blasphemy even to bring up this subject, much less treat it seriously.

[Rvaughn]

The CBF decision on hiring might affect its relationship with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
Texas Baptist convention takes note of more inclusive hiring policy by CBF

Texas Baptist leaders responded on Facebook to questions about whether the BGCT will continue to list CBF as “extended family” on the convention website and allow churches to channel funds to the Fellowship through the state convention’s unified budget.

Meanwhile in Kentucky...

The BGCT is not the only Baptist state convention watching developments in CBF. Last fall the Kentucky Baptist Convention authorized a committee to monitor moral and theological stances of the moderate group in order to determine whether churches that affiliate with CBF can remain in good standing with Kentucky Baptists.

[Sandy]

The UMC is struggling mightily to think about a compromise in this area ourselves. And the major thing to avoid is any kind of compromise that looks demeaning to someone on either side. So far, the UMC has handle sexuality issues poorly. I'm afraid it is very very hard for institutions, even very well meaning, to find a good compromise that allows for people to follow their conscience AND work together in an equal way.

CBF included individuals from all of the perspectives and viewpoints on this issue deliberately in the decision making process. And when you say that the major thing is to avoid a compromise that looks demeaning to the other side, that goes for all sides, not just the one trying to be "prophetic." You move a little bit, learn to live with where you moved, and go again. You're not trying to do something to impress outsiders who hold either view, it's for you and your people and your constituency.

[JE Pettibone]

="Timothy Bonney"]The UMC is struggling mightily to think about a compromise in this area ourselves. And the major thing to avoid is any kind of compromise that looks demeaning to someone on either side. So far, the UMC has handle sexuality issues poorly. I'm afraid it is very very hard for institutions, even very well meaning, to find a good compromise that allows for people to follow their conscience AND work together in an equal way.

Sandy"

CBF included individuals from all of the perspectives and viewpoints on this issue deliberately in the decision making process. And when you say that the major thing is to avoid a compromise that looks demeaning to the other side, that goes for all sides, not just the one trying to be "prophetic." You move a little bit, learn to live with where you moved, and go again. You're not trying to do something to impress outsiders who hold either view, it's for you and your people and your constituency.

Ed: I wish that in fact I could believe that individuals from all of the perspectives and viewpoints on this issue where truly included. in deed individuals from many perspectives and view points where interviewed even quoted but nothing indicates a degree of understanding between the interviewee and the interviewer who wrote up and reported on the interview.

[William Thornton]

Sandy has always been pretty solid in looking at CBF stuff. Dave put the best look on it. I'd guess that Sandy is going to be right that "you move a little bit" get comfortable there, and then "go again." Half now, half later. Does anyone in the CBF expect that there is any direction here other than more inclusion, etc.?

I sympathize with my CBF friends over the issue. How big a deal would it be to go all the way now? Is there that much revenue at stake?

[JE Pettibone]

Sandy has always been pretty solid in looking at CBF stuff. Dave put the best look on it. I'd guess that Sandy is going to be right that "you move a little bit" get comfortable there, and then "go again." Half now, half later. Does anyone in the CBF expect that there is any direction here other than more inclusion, etc.?

I sympathize with my CBF friends over the issue. How big a deal would it be to go all the way now? Is there that much revenue at stake?

Ed: William I do think you are far more aware of "CBF Stuff" than the typical SBC adherent, but how would you know how "solid" any one has been in looking at CBF stuff. How long has it been since either you, Tim or Sandy have attended a CBF event or even visited a CBF church. Dave is a good source of information on what Bill Leonard has called "East Coast Establishment Baptist" but I imagine that Dave will agree that there are other, CBF geographical and sociological groupings that he is less well acquainted.

I see your crack about the amount of revenue as either simply a cheap shot or you are less acquainted with CBF than I generally give you credit for. Maybe it is just the SBC in you.

[Dave Roberts]

The honest answer about finance is that no one fully knows. Scenarios have been run that were shared with the Governing Board and with Missions and Ministries Councils, but there are a great many variables in each scenario, so I would not share them. No decision is easy.

Ed, it's probably true that I represent the East Coast establishment mold of CBF, but I have talked with folks from Texas, from CBF West, from Florida, and Alabama in this, and we all seemed in basically the same place. No decision is perfect, and in this one, I can see many sides that might have tilted the process in slightly different ways. As to what the future holds, I do not see this as fitting the famous SBC "slippery slope" argument. That was never true in the 1960's and 1970's and still isn't, but it was a favorite of the Pressler/Patterson coalition. In a world of divided viewpoints, it's tough to make decisions at don't have major pressure points in them.

[Tim Bonney]

Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines.

I call foul. Where did that 90% come from? I’m guess you just made that up or at least surmised it. What I see in survies is that while many denominations are continuing to maintain anti-GLBT stances, there isn’t anywhere near 90% of Christians that agree with them.

[JE Pettibone]

The honest answer about finance is that no one fully knows. Scenarios have been run that were shared with the Governing Board and with Missions and Ministries Councils, but there are a great many variables in each scenario, so I would not share them. No decision is easy.

Ed, it's probably true that I represent the East Coast establishment mold of CBF, but I have talked with folks from Texas, from CBF West, from Florida, and Alabama in this, and we all seemed in basically the same place. No decision is perfect, and in this one, I can see many sides that might have tilted the process in slightly different ways. As to what the future holds, I do not see this as fitting the famous SBC "slippery slope" argument. That was never true in the 1960's and 1970's and still isn't, but it was a favorite of the Pressler/Patterson coalition. In a world of divided viewpoints, it's tough to make decisions at don't have major pressure points in them.

Ed: Dave I, am not sure. in reference to Williams remark on finances, that you and I are talking about the same thing.

I read William as implying that CBF searched or is searching for direction that will least negatively affect the Fellowship's budget. I would be surprised if that question was not among the many raised, however I do not think it was near the deciding factor.

What is the question regarding finances to which you say "no one fully knows"?

[Sandy]

Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines.

I call foul. Where did that 90% come from? I’m guess you just made that up or at least surmised it. What I see in survies is that while many denominations are continuing to maintain anti-GLBT stances, there isn’t anywhere near 90% of Christians that agree with them.

You can find individuals in most any denomination who hold a welcoming and affirming perspective toward LGBTQ persons, and those who don't see the lifestyle or orientation as sinful. You'll probably find more who haven't given it much thought, or don't care. But few denominations have gone the route of hiring, or ordaining, persons of LGBTQ orientation, and those that have are clergy-run, and don't operate by membership vote or preference. People in them have voted on the issue, though, and the size and scope of the exodus, out of the few liberal denominations in the US that have done it, indicates that even far to the left, a significant number of congregants do not accept the idea that homosexual orientation and behavior, or other sexual identity postures, are not inherently sinful. The membership and attendance losses have been so large in at least two of them, that the denominational structure has had to be altered to adjust to the losses of revenue and of bodies to fill the pastorates and other places of employment.

If your "revenue" declines to the point where you can't provide for your organizational mission and purpose, which is a priority above supposed "progressive" stances or positions, then you also lose the platform for the progressive issue. Making this into an "either do it or else" issue is selfish, and demostrates a lack of commitment to an organization in which you've committed to participate, and have done so for decades in many cases. Demanding to have everything your way is intolerant, inconsiderate of others who you are cooperating with who hold a different view, and hypocritical. Those on the welcoming and affirming side have demanded a voice and consideration. Now they've got some, but they're not willing to take it in a way that gives the other side an equal voice and consideration.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy you did not address, let alone answer his question about where you got the 90% figure.

[Dave Roberts]

The honest answer about finance is that no one fully knows. Scenarios have been run that were shared with the Governing Board and with Missions and Ministries Councils, but there are a great many variables in each scenario, so I would not share them. No decision is easy.

Ed, it's probably true that I represent the East Coast establishment mold of CBF, but I have talked with folks from Texas, from CBF West, from Florida, and Alabama in this, and we all seemed in basically the same place. No decision is perfect, and in this one, I can see many sides that might have tilted the process in slightly different ways. As to what the future holds, I do not see this as fitting the famous SBC "slippery slope" argument. That was never true in the 1960's and 1970's and still isn't, but it was a favorite of the Pressler/Patterson coalition. In a world of divided viewpoints, it's tough to make decisions at don't have major pressure points in them.

Ed: Dave I, am not sure. in reference to Williams remark on finances, that you and I are talking about the same thing.

I read William as implying that CBF searched or is searching for direction that will least negatively affect the Fellowship's budget. I would be surprised if that question was not among the many raised, however I do not think it was near the deciding factor.

What is the question regarding finances to which you say "no one fully knows"?

Ed, the financial questions were not determinative at all, but the questions were asked and were at least contemplated as wise managers would do.

[Sandy]

Ed: Sandy you did not address, let alone answer his question about where you got the 90% figure.

I'm basing that on which denominations ordain gays and lesbians, and allow their clergy to marry them, as opposed to those who don't. I know Timothy personally approves, for example, but the UMC doesn't. Most Christian denominations don't, including the Catholic church. Whether or not that's the opinion of all their members, most don't go as far as CBF is going in terms of permitting employment, ordination or have a welcoming and affirming stance as a denomination. 90% is a guess. If it were much less than that, you'd see a lot more denominations opening up to allowing it.

[JE Pettibone]

The honest answer about finance is that no one fully knows. Scenarios have been run that were shared with the Governing Board and with Missions and Ministries Councils, but there are a great many variables in each scenario, so I would not share them. No decision is easy.

Ed, it's probably true that I represent the East Coast establishment mold of CBF, but I have talked with folks from Texas, from CBF West, from Florida, and Alabama in this, and we all seemed in basically the same place. No decision is perfect, and in this one, I can see many sides that might have tilted the process in slightly different ways. As to what the future holds, I do not see this as fitting the famous SBC "slippery slope" argument. That was never true in the 1960's and 1970's and still isn't, but it was a favorite of the Pressler/Patterson coalition. In a world of divided viewpoints, it's tough to make decisions at don't have major pressure points in them.

Ed: Dave I, am not sure. in reference to Williams remark on finances, that you and I are talking about the same thing.

I read William as implying that CBF searched or is searching for direction that will least negatively affect the Fellowship's budget. I would be surprised if that question was not among the many raised, however I do not think it was near the deciding factor.

What is the question regarding finances to which you say "no one fully knows"?

Ed, the financial questions were not determinative at all, but the questions were asked and were at least contemplated as wise managers would do.

ED: Again Dave, what is / are the financial question or questions that "no one" fully knows.

Or are you simply saying no one knows how much or in what direction the change in CBF''s employment policy will affect the financial bottom line?

[Sandy]

Ed, the financial questions were not determinative at all, but the questions were asked and were at least contemplated as wise managers would do.

Again Dave, what is / are the financial question or questions that "no one" fully knows. Or are you simply saying no one knows how much or in what direction the change in CBF''s employment policy will affect the financial bottom line?

Just an observation, but CBF has a means in place by which its constituency, members of the churches which support it financially, can determine how the fellowship decides what its policy will be. It is called sending representatives to the General Assembly. I haven't kept up with the specifics of CBF policy, but as I understand it, any member of a contributing church, or an individual contributing member, can register, attend and vote at a General Assembly, and that's where these decisions are made. So as I read about some of the "push back," I have to ask, were there members of those churches at the GA?

Also, while CBF claims support from 1,800 churches, the degree of support from specific congregations varies widely. The congregation where I was a member for 14 years in Houston is a core supporter, uniquely aligned with CBF, and with the BGCT. It has shifted the 15% of undesignated receipts it used to give to the CP to a 50-50 split between state convention and CBF. Nine of its members sit on CBF trustee boards, including the coordinating council, and its pastor was on the committee that drafted this plan. It is not a "welcoming and affirming" congregation in the formal sense of the phrase, but it is not a hostile envirnoment for LGBTQ persons, and there are many who are members of the church. It wouldn't leave CBF under any circumstance regarding its hiring policy, whether it decided no restrictions on hiring on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, or whether it continued as it now is. I would guess that CBF can count on about 200 churches of similar commitment and mindset, though this particular church is among the "top ten" in the total dollar amount it gives, and in the top ten percent in attendance and membership among CBF congregations. Since CBF doesn't really put out a lot of specific data on who and where it's giving comes from, I would estimate that 80% of it comes from this group of churches at its core, and I doubt any of them are going anywhere.

I don't know the numbers when it comes to welcoming and affirming congregations that are in CBF, but I wouldn't think there are many of them, because that's a small group among Baptists. There was only one in Houston, a congregation of about 100, and its commitment to CBF wasn't as much as it gave to ABC-USA. I know of one in Nashville, and Calvary in DC, and we had a former member of this board who was associate pastor of one in Atlanta, Virginia Highland. I think Druid Hills is w&a as well. Those churches can all participate in the General Assembly, and they've all stayed in so far, even though the hiring policy was restrictive. I would guess they have members, including their pastors, who have input and influence.

I haven't been involved with a CBF congregation for more than a decade now, and it would take a book to explain my view on sexual orientation and gender identity as a Christian. It has changed a lot. As far as CBF is concerned, this seems to be the first time they've really dug into their own constituency and looked at something with the realization that they are unique, they are no longer "SBC Lite", and who they are and what they do doesn't require anticipating the reaction of the SBC, or looking outside of their own constituency, to make a decision. I'm a little surprised that their "left wing", which has prided itself on its tolerance of diversity, is the wing that is showing the most resistance to working with everyone else.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Thank you Sandy or disproving William's comment about how "Solid" you have been about "CBF stuff".

[Sandy]

Ed: Thank you Sandy or disproving William's comment about how "Solid" you have been about "CBF stuff".

You're welcome to dispute anything I've posted with facts. Since you haven't posted anything to refute what I said, you must not have anything. Seems like you're pretty upset and all out of sorts about this particular proposal and action taken by CBF. I haven't actually seen you post whether you're in favor of lifting all restrictions on LGBTQ persons in hiring, or if you think everything was just hunky dory the way it was. Your questions are just antagonizing and accusatory, not really thoughtful or insightful when it comes to the decision making process, and what CBF is wrestling with.

[Haruo]

Ed: Sandy you did not address, let alone answer his question about where you got the 90% figure.

I'm basing that on which denominations ordain gays and lesbians, and allow their clergy to marry them, as opposed to those who don't. I know Timothy personally approves, for example, but the UMC doesn't. Most Christian denominations don't, including the Catholic church.

I think the Catholic Church does ordain gays, but expects the same celibacy it expects of men of any other sexual orientation (or none).

[Haruo]

And, of course, the RCC does NOT ordain lesbians, but their lesbian orientation is not the reason. I'm talking here about sacerdotal ordination. I don't know if they ritual that turns a nun into a mother superior is considered ordination, but if it is then the RCC does probably ordain lesbians, and gay men, to that sort of office.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Thank you Sandy or disproving William's comment about how "Solid" you have been about "CBF stuff".

Sandy; You're welcome to dispute anything I've posted with facts. Since you haven't posted anything to refute what I said, you must not have anything. Seems like you're pretty upset and all out of sorts about this particular proposal and action taken by CBF. I haven't actually seen you post whether you're in favor of lifting all restrictions on LGBTQ persons in hiring, or if you think everything was just hunky dory the way it was. Your questions are just antagonizing and accusatory, not really thoughtful or insightful when it comes to the decision making process, and what CBF is wrestling with.

ED: Sandy as one who has read my post over the past ten years and more you should know that I am not happy with CBF lifting the prohibition of hiring homosexuals by the national office. I do not believe that there is a shortage of heterosexual Baptist to fill such jobs.

And if it has not been obvious I do not believe the report of the envisioning committee is trustfully reflective of the CBF constituency. Here I am not suggesting that the committee has lied but that their was a predisposition to selective listening.

You say it has been more than a decade since you belonged to a CBF church. Is it safe to say it has been just as long or longer since you attended a General assembly, national or regional?

I have attended every national General Assembly since 1988, with the exception of two, those where the first of the two in Birmingham, and one of several that have been in Texas (Dallas, I think). During our 16 years in New York I missed only one North East regional meeting, Trudy was Moderator of that Region one year. During the our time in Louisville I attended three Kentucky meetings plus one the then North Central region. During our nearly 4 years in in Cincinnati we missed no meetings of what became the central region.

Where you are out of touch starts in your first line. This was a decision by the CBF Governing Board and with no hearing by a General Assembly .

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will continue to make sexual orientation a consideration in some, but not all, employment decisions with a new hiring policy and implementation plan adopted Feb. 9 by the CBF Governing Board.

The [b] Governing Boar[b] voted unanimously to replace an 18-year-old policy barring “the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual” with a new policy that does not mention sexual orientation.

Another motion to accept the 43-page final report — including an implementation plan — of a two-year Illumination Project which was assigned to listen to various voices in CBF life on matters of human sexuality also passed, but with one opposing vote and one abstention.

[Sandy]

ED: Sandy as one who has read my post over the past ten years and more you should know that I am not happy with CBF lifting the prohibition of hiring homosexuals by the national office. I do not believe that there is a shortage of heterosexual Baptist to fill such jobs.

Fair enough. But I take it that you're not leaving because they are lifting some of those restrictions. You're still with ABC-USA which has a much more open and less restrictive policy regarding homosexual orientation that includes permitting ordination.

And if it has not been obvious I do not believe the report of the envisioning committee is trustfully reflective of the CBF constituency. Here I am not suggesting that the committee has lied but that their was a predisposition to selective listening.

The makeup of the committee itself was approved by a general assembly, was it not? This particular issue was deliberately included in the committee's study. Yeah, it's been a while since I was involved in a CBF church, but I don't think things have changed a lot since then, in terms of its philosophy and approach to ministry, though the structure has been reorganized a couple of times. CBF has been about "a new way to be Baptist" particularly avoiding the majoritarian dominance of the SBC that led to its creation in the first place, the key word being "inclusive." Maybe it got overused. The restrictions on hiring, and the distance CBF put between itself, and LGBTQ friendly groups like the Baptist Peace Fellowship were a reaction to criticism from the SBC, and a recognition that most of its support still came from the 1,600 or so out of its 1,800 churches that were dually supporting the SBC. But that wasn't truly "inclusive." I believe that if you took a straight up vote in a general assembly, the majority would support keeping the restrictions in place, and want to leave the issue alone.

CBF is what it is. You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. There are churches that are progressive and liberal in their theology and approach to ministry, including those who are welcome and affirming of LGBTQ persons, and those who do not see that lifestyle or orientation as anything spiritually disqualifying. There are those who are more conservative than that, but open to ministry cooperation with those who think differently and don't make doctrine or ministry philosophy a test of fellowship. Put both of those groups together, and you still don't have a majority of CBF affiliated congregations represented. There are many more who come from churches that are, to one degree or another, are on a spectrum of commitment to the CP, from a minimum of loyalty to the SBC and far more to CBF, to those who are just open enough to allow members to decide where their missions money will go. There are some progressive liberals in those churches too, but I don't think you'd find a majority willing to support a policy that places no restrictions on sexual orientation and gender identity in hiring. So it has to take a different approach to be true to its claim of being inclusive, because the general nature and tendency of Baptists, and of Christians in general, is exclusion and division, not inclusion and unity.

Up to this point, CBF has been led, and run, by mostly displaced, former SBC prominents, and operated within a structure that was largely modeled after the SBC with specific differences related to what was perceived as flawed within the former denominational structure. The recent re-organization and restructuring was difficult, because it displaced some of the former SBC prominente, and put a structure in place to eliminate majoritarian influence as a qualifying factor. This is by far the biggest test of their unity.

Did I get that right?